14 



But here we're talking about two basic changes in existing regula- 

 tions, correct? 



Mr. Clayton. Yes. 



Mr. VOLKMER. One is saying that the exemption should be 

 30,000. That's not a great economic impact; that's not a big legal 

 matter to work out. I think that's pretty clear, what it says. 



I think the other thing is pretty clear, as to the Egg Board hav- 

 ing the right to increase the assessment, but you have to have a 

 referendum. I doubt if your regulation is going to be much different 

 from the statutory language, is it? 



Mr. Clayton. I suspect it would reflect largely the language in 

 the statute. 



Mr. VOLKMER. Now, I understand — and again, I'll ask this ques- 

 tion of the board and perhaps you can have Mr. Holbrook — if you 

 have to leave, that will be fine, but I would like for them to stay 

 during their testimony, because there were amendments back in 

 1989 to this act. As I understand it, the regulations on those 

 amendments were done in about the timeframe that is required in 

 this bill. I'm just curious as to why you wouldn't be able to do it 

 on these, also. 



Do you understand? 



Mr. Clayton. Yes, sir. If I might try to respond to your question. 



Mr. VoLKMER. Yes, please. 



Mr. Clayton. Mr. Chairman, I think one probably ought not to 

 focus so much on 180 days as the time it will take us to do it, but 

 more as the outside limit. We, too, would expect that it could be 

 done in something less than 180 days. 



The fact remains, though, that for a regulation to go through the 

 process, while granted that a more complicated regulation may 

 take more time, and you are certainly right in terms of economic 

 impact analysis and these kinds of things, nonetheless the number 

 of steps that a regulation must go through in the clearance process 

 is in no way related to the complexity of the regulations. There are 

 just a number of steps which must be proceeded through, and this 

 would be no exception. 



Certainly, our intent would be to try to meet the intent of this 

 subcommittee and come as close to the 90 days as we possibly 

 could, but there are a number of steps that we have to go through. 

 We do not want to disappoint you and your fellow members of this 

 subcommittee by exceeding those timeframes. It is our experience 

 that no matter how simple a rule might be, that given the number 

 of steps it must go through, sometimes it could take longer than 

 90 days. 



Mr. VOLKMER. All right. I understand that. In other words, every 

 rule would have to go out for public comment; and if you get 10,000 

 or 20,000 responses, it's going to take longer than if you only get 

 10 or 15. I recognize that. 



Mr. Clayton. That's certainly true. 



Mr. VOLKMER. I think we'll have to discuss this. In other words, 

 what you are basically saying is that you want this 180 days more 

 as an outside limit so that in the event that something does hap- 

 pen along the way to delay it, and you do run to 95 days, 98 days, 

 or 110 days, you're still not in violation of the statute? 



Mr. Clayton. That would be correct. 



